Chapter XI: Front Matter (11)

The first point which requires to be determined, is the subject of the verse. Every other reference except that to the [Pg 216] ten tribes is here out of the question; inasmuch as the same who, in the preceding verse, were called Lo-Ammi, are now to be called sons of the living God. Several of the ancient expositors here assume a sudden transition to the Christian Church; but such would be a _salto mortale_. Nor are we to understand by the children of Israel, all the descendants of Jacob; for the children of Judah are distinguished from them in ver. 2. Substantially, however, those too are included, as appears from this very verse; for both shall then form one nation of brethren. But here the prophet views only one portion, because to this only did the preceding threatening, and the mission of the prophet in general, refer. From this, also, it may be explained how the prophet may apply to the _part_ the promises of Genesis, which there refer to the _whole_. The reference to these promises, in the first part of the verse, cannot be at all mistaken. Compare especially, as agreeing most literally, the passage in Gen. xxii. 17: "I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is on the shore of the sea;" and xxxii. 13 (12): "I make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which is not numbered for multitude." A similar literal reference is in Jer. xxxiii. 22: "As the host of heaven is not numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David My servant." Now, the reference here cannot be accidental. It supposes that these promises were at that time generally known in the kingdom of Israel. They served to strengthen the ungodly in their false security. Relying on them, they charged the prophets with making God a liar in thus announcing the impending destruction of the kingdom, inasmuch as the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled in all its extent. The prophet, however, by his almost literal repetition of the promise, shows that thereby his threatenings are not excluded--"teaches that the visitation of which he had spoken would be such that, nevertheless, God would not forget His word; that the rejection of the people would be such that, nevertheless, its election should stand firm and sure,--and, finally, that the adoption should not be invalid by which He had chosen Abraham's progeny as His people" (_Calvin_).--The case is quite analogous, when corrupted Christian churches harden themselves in trusting in the promise that the Lord would be with them all the days, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church. The [Pg 217] Lord knoweth how to execute His judgments so that His promises shall not suffer thereby, yea, that their fulfilment is thereby rendered possible. The relation of our passage to Is. x. 22 requires _further_ to be considered: "For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant only shall return." Here, too, the reference to the promises in Genesis cannot be mistaken. But there is this difference,--that in the time of Isaiah, the people, viewing the partial fulfilment of the promises of God in their then prosperous condition, as a sure pledge of divine mercy, founded thereupon their false security. To this, however, the prophet replies, that even the perfect fulfilment would give no warrant for it. In Hosea, however, they rely on the perfect fulfilment, which had, as yet, no existence at all. But Hosea has in view the godly as much as the ungodly. To the former he shows that here also there would be a fulfilment of what is written in Num. xxiii. 19: "God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent. Should He say, and not do it; and speak, and not fulfil it?" Moreover, we cannot fail to see that, in the verse under review, as also in ver. 2, there is an allusion to the first child, Jezreel,--that in the second member of the verse there is an allusion to Lo-Ammi, and in ver. 3, to Lo-Ruhamah. But the name Jezreel is now taken in a good sense, probably in the sense in which it was first given to the valley (compare remarks on i. 4), and also to the town by its founders. Jezreel means "God sows." The founders of the town thereby expressed the hope that God would cause an abundant harvest to proceed from a small sowing--a glorious end from a small beginning. Thus God will now sow the small seed of Israel, and an infinitely rich harvest shall be gained from this sowing; compare remarks on ver. 25.--But if now we seek for the historical reference of the announcement, we are compelled to go back to the sense of those declarations in Genesis. By many, these are referred merely to the bodily descendants of the Patriarchs; by many, also, to their spiritual descendants, their successors in the faith. But the latter reference is altogether arbitrary; and the former could be well-founded only, if the Congregation of the Lord had been destined solely for the natural descendants, and if all the Gentiles had been refused admittance into it. But that such is not the case, is evident from the command to circumcise every bondservant; [Pg 218] for, by circumcision, a man was received among the people of God. This appears, _further_, from the command in Exod. xii. 48, that every stranger who wished to partake of the Passover must be previously circumcised; and this implies that strangers might partake in the sign and feast of the covenant if they wished; compare _Michaelis_, _Mos. Recht._ Th. iv. § 184. This appears, _moreover_, from Deut. xxiii. 1-8, where the Edomites and Egyptians are expressly declared to be capable of being received into the Congregation of the Lord. It appears, _still further_, from the circumstance that, in the same passage, the command to exclude the Ammonites and Moabites is founded upon a special reason. And, _finally_, it appears from the Jewish practice at all times. But the heathens who were received among the people of God were considered as belonging to the posterity of the Patriarchs, as their sons by adoption. How indeed could it be otherwise, since, by intermarriage, every difference must have very soon disappeared? They were called children of Israel, and children of Jacob, no less than were the others. It now appears to what extent the promise to the Patriarchs refers to the Gentiles also--viz., in so far as they became believers in the God of Israel, and joined themselves to Israel. Compare Is. xliv. 5: "One shall say, I am Jehovah's, and another shall call the name of Jacob, and another shall write with his hand. Unto the Lord! and boast of the name of Israel." Such an eager desire of the Gentiles towards the kingdom of God regularly took place, either when the God of Israel had revealed Himself by specially distinguishing manifestations of His omnipotence and glory, as, _e.g._, in the deliverance from the Egyptian and Babylonish captivities, in both of which events we find a number of those who had previously been heathens, ערב, in the train of the Israelites;--or when a feeling of the vanity of the idols of the heathen world had been awakened with special vividness, as in the times after Alexander the Great, in which Roman and Greek heathenism became more and more _effete_, and rapidly hastened on towards ruin. In the time of Christ, both of these causes co-operated. If there were soundness in the opinion now generally prevalent, according to which the Church of the New Testament stands quite independent of the Congregation of Israel, having originated from a free and equal union of believers from Israel, and of those from among the Gentiles, [Pg 219] then indeed the promise now before us would have no longer any reference to New Testament times. The New Testament Church would be a generation altogether different, and no longer acknowledge Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their fathers. But, according to the constant doctrine of the Old as well as of the New Testament, there is only one Church of God from Abraham to the end of the days--only one house under two dispensations. John the Baptist proceeds upon the supposition that the members of the New Testament also must be children of Abraham, else the covenant and promise of God would come to nought. But as the bodily descent from Abraham is no security against the danger of exclusion from his posterity--of which Ishmael was the first example--and as, so early as in the Pentateuch, it is said, with reference to every greater transgression, "This soul is cut off from its people," so, on the other hand, God, in the exercise of His sovereign liberty, may give to Abraham, in the room of his degenerate children after the flesh, adopted children without number, who shall sit down with him, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, whilst the sons of the kingdom are cast out.--After these remarks on the promise to the Patriarchs, there can be no longer any difficulty in making out the historical reference of the announcement before us. It cannot refer to the bodily descendants of Abraham, as such, any more than the promise of a son to Abraham was fulfilled in the birth of Ishmael, or than the Arabs stand related to the promise of the innumerable multitude of his descendants,--a promise which is repeated, in the same extent, to Isaac and Jacob, although they were not the ancestors of the Arabs. Degenerate sons are not a blessing; they are no objects of promise, no sons in the full sense. Every one is a son of Abraham, only in so far as he is a son of God. For this reason the phrases "sons of Israel" and "sons of the living God" are, in the passage before us, connected with each other. Not as though the corporeal descent were altogether a matter of indifference. The corporeal descendants of the Patriarchs had the nearest claims to becoming their children in the full sense. It was to them that the means of becoming so were first granted. To them pertained the covenants, the promises, and the adoption, Rom. ix. 4. But all these external advantages were of no avail to them when they allowed them to [Pg 220] remain unused; in these circumstances, neither the promise to Abraham, nor the announcement before us, had any reference to them. Both of them would have remained to this day unfulfilled, although the unconverted children of Israel had increased so as to have become the most populous nation on the face of the whole earth. It thus appears that the announcement before us was first truly realized in the time of the Messiah; inasmuch as it was at that time that the family of the Patriarchs was so mightily increased; and that it will yet be more fully realized, partly by the reception of an innumerable multitude of adopted sons, and partly by the elevation of those who were sons only in a lower sense, to be sons in the highest. That which occurred at the time after the Babylonish captivity, when the Lord stirred up a number of Israelites to return to Palestine, we can regard as only an insignificant prelude; partly because this number was too small to correspond, even in any degree, to the infinite extent of the promise, and partly because there were among them certainly a few only who, in the fullest sense, deserved the name of "Children of Israel." "Israel"--which is the higher name, and has reference to the relation to God--is here used emphatically, as appears especially from a comparison with ver. 4, where it is taken from the degenerate children, and exchanged for the name "Jezreel."--In the second part of the verse, we must first set aside the false interpretation of במקום אשר by "instead of," which is given by _Grotius_ and others. It has arisen from an inappropriate reference to the Latin, which has, however, no support in the Hebrew _usus loquendi_. The words can only mean (compare Lev. iv. 24, 33; Jer. xxii. 12; Ezek. xxi. 35; Neh. iv. 14): "in the place where," or, more literally still, "in the place that"--the wider designation instead of the narrower. The _status constr._ is explained by the circumstance that the whole succeeding sentence together expresses only one substantive idea, equivalent to: "in the place of the being said unto them." The place may here be, either that where the people first received the name Lo-Ammi, _i.e._, Palestine, or the place of the exile, where they first felt the full meaning of it,--the misery being a _sermo realis_ of God. Decisive in favour of the latter reference is the following verse, where the הארץ, the land of the exile, corresponds with מקים in the verse before us. (According to _Jonathan_, the sense is: "In the place to [Pg 221] which they have been carried away among the Gentiles.") It is intentionally that both times the Future יֵאָמֵר is used, which is to be understood as the Present. The difference of time being thus disregarded, the contrast becomes so much the more striking.--By "people" and "children" of God, the same thing is expressed according to different relations. The Israelites were the people of God, inasmuch as He was their King; and children of God, in as far as He was their Father,--their Father, it is true, in the first place, not, as in the New Testament (John i. 12, 13), in reference to the spiritual generation, but in relation to heart-felt love, similar to the love of a father for a son. With regard to the Old Testament idea of son ship to God, compare the remarks on Ps. ii. 7. In this relation, sometimes all Israel is personified as the son of God; thus, _e.g._, Exod. iv. 22: "Thus thou shalt say unto Pharaoh: My son. My first-born is Israel." Sometimes the Israelites are also called the _children_ or _sons_ of God; _e.g._, Deut. xiv. 1: "Ye are children to the Lord your God" (compare also Deut. xxxii. 19), although not every single individual could on this account be called "son of God." In this sense, that designation is never used, evidently because the sonship under the Old Testament does not rest so much on the personal relation of the single individual to God,--as is the case in the New Testament,--but the individual rather partakes in it only as a part of the whole. But there is an easy transition from the sonship as viewed in the Old Testament, to the sonship as seen in the New. The former, in its highest perfection, cannot exist at all without the latter. It is only when its single members are born of God, that the Congregation can be regarded and treated as the child of God in the full sense of the word, and that the whole fulness of His love can be poured out upon it; for this is the only way of attaining to likeness with God, which is the condition of admission to the rights of children. Hence it appears that the υἱοθεσία under the Old Testament was an actual prophecy of the times of the New Testament; and from it, it follows also that the announcement under consideration has its ultimate reference to these times. Earlier fulfilments--especially at the return from the Babylonish captivity--are not to be excluded, inasmuch as the idea comprehends in it everything in which it is, even in the least degree, realized; but they can be considered [Pg 222] only as a slight prelude to Its real fulfilment, which takes place only when the reality fully coincides with the idea; so that we are not at liberty to limit ourselves to the commencement of the Messianic time, but must include the Messianic time in its last consummation.--Another question still remains:--Why is God here called the "_living_?" Plainly, to point out the antithesis of the true God to dead idols, which cannot love, because they do not live; and thus to bring out the greatness of the privilege of being the child of such a God. The same antithesis is found in Deut. xxxii. 3 seqq.: "Where are now their gods, the rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings? Let them rise up and help you; let it be a covering to you. See now that I, I am He, and not is a God beside Me. I kill and I make alive. I wound and I heal." This antithesis still continues; the world has only changed its idols. It still always seeks the life from the dead, from the gross idol of sin up to the refined idol of a self-made abstract god, whether he be formed from logical notions or from emotions and feelings. But how much soever they may strive to give life to their idols, they remain dead, although they should even attain to a semblance of life. The true God, on the contrary, lives and continues to live, how much soever they may strive to slay Him. He manifests Himself as the living one, either by smiting and killing them, if they continue in their impenitence, or by healing and quickening them, if they become His children.--_Finally_,--we must still consider the two citations, in the New Testament, of the passage before us. One in 1 Pet. ii. 10, οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαὸς, νῦν δὲ λαὸς Θεοῦ· οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες, must certainly strike us, inasmuch as this epistle, on conclusive grounds (compare _Steiger_ S. 14 ff.), cannot be considered as being addressed to Jewish Christians exclusively. But still more striking is the second quotation in Rom. ix. 25, 26: ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει· Καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου, έν μου· καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην, ἠγαπημένην. Καὶ ἔσται, ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐῤῥήθη αὐτοῖς οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ζῶντος. Here our passage is not only alluded to, but expressly quoted, and, in opposition to the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles is proved from it. But how can a passage which, according to the whole context, can refer to Israel only, be applied [Pg 223] directly to the Gentiles? The answer very readily suggests itself when we reduce the prophecy to its fundamental idea. This is none other than that of divine mercy, which may indeed, by apostasy and unfaithfulness, be prevented from manifesting itself, but can never be extinguished, because it has its foundation in God's nature. Compare Jer. xxxi. 20: "Is Ephraim a dear son to Me, a child of joy? For as often as I speak of him, I must still remember him. Therefore My bowels sound for him, _I will have mercy_ upon him, saith the Lord." Now, in the same manner as this truth was realized in the restoration of the children of Israel to be again the children of God, so it is in the reception of the Gentiles. It is not at all a mere application, but a real proof which here forms the question at issue. It is _because_ God had promised to receive again the children of Israel, that He must receive the Gentiles also; for otherwise that divine decree would have its foundation in mere caprice, which cannot be conceived to have any existence in God. Although the Gentiles are not so near as Israel, yet He must satisfy the claims of those who are more remote, just because He acknowledges the claims of those who are near. The necessity of going back to the fundamental idea appears in the promises as well as in the commandments. We cite only one instance which is especially fitted to serve as a parallel to the case before us. There is no doubt, and prejudice alone could have denied, that in the Pentateuch, by _friend_ and _brother_ the Israelite is to be understood throughout; it is in the New Testament that the command of Christian brotherly love is given. After having commended truthfulness, Paul adds: "Because ye are members of one another"--a reason which can refer to those only who have Christ as their common head. From this limitation, can anything be inferred to the prejudice of love towards the whole human race, or of the duties towards all without any distinction? Just the reverse. It is just because the Israelite is bound to love the Israelite, and the Christian the Christian, that he should embrace all men in love. If the special relation to God as the common Redeemer afford the foundation for the _special_ love, then the _general_ relation to God as the Creator and Preserver must also afford the foundation of _universal_ love; just as from the command to honour father and mother, it necessarily follows that we must also [Pg 224] honour uncle and aunt, king and magistrate. This is the only correct view of the laws and prophecies; and if it be consistently followed out, it will make water to flow out of the rock, and will create streams in the wilderness.

Ver. 2. "_And the children of Judah and the children of Israel assemble themselves together, and set over themselves one head, and go up out of the land; for great is the day of Jezreel._"

The words, "They appoint themselves a king," appear strange at first sight. For it is not, in general, the union of Judah and Israel which the prophet expects from better times;--a _perverse_ union of both, one, it may be, in which the house of Judah shall also give up Jehovah his God, and David his King, only in order to be able to live on a right brotherly footing with Israel, would have been anything but a progress and a blessing;--but such a union as has for its foundation the return of Israel to the true God, and to the Davidic dynasty. This appears clearly from iii. 5. The difficulty is removed by a comparison with the passage of the Pentateuch to which the prophet seems to allude: "Thou shalt set over thee a king, whom the Lord thy God shall choose," Deut. xvii. 15. The prophet seems to have these words before his eyes, as it appears elsewhere also, where he describes the hitherto opposite conduct of the Israelites; compare the remarks on iii. 4. From these it appears that the election of the king by God, who had promised eternal dominion to the house of David, and his election by the people, do not in the least exclude one another. On the contrary, it is _because_ God had elected the king, that now the people also elect him. _Calvin_ remarks: "There appears to be transferred to men what properly belongs to God alone--viz., the appointment of a king; but the prophet expresses, by this word, the obedience of faith; for it is not enough that Christ be given, and placed before men as a King, but they must also acknowledge and reverently receive Him as a King. From this we infer, that when we believe the Gospel, we choose, as it were by our own vote, Christ as our King." That the prophet understands the "setting of a head" in this sense, appears also from the circumstance that the whole verse is based upon the reference to the Exodus from Egypt, which is now to be repeated. To this the words, "They assemble themselves together," likewise refer; for the departure from Egypt was preceded by the assembling together of the [Pg 225] whole people. The mention of a "head" refers back to Moses. In his case, as well as that of David subsequently, the election by the people was only the acknowledgment of his having been divinely called.--Another question is, How are the words, "They go up out of the land," to be understood? There can be no doubt that by "land," the land of captivity is designated. For the words are borrowed from Exod. i. 10, where Pharaoh says, "When there falleth out any war, they will join our enemies, and fight against us, and go up out of the land," ועלה מן הארץ. The prophet, moreover, is his own interpreter in ii. 17, where he expressly compares this new going up to the promised land with the former going up from Egypt: "_As in the day when she went up out of the land of Egypt_;" just as, in other passages, he describes their being carried away, under the figure of their being carried away to Egypt--Assyria being considered as another Egypt. Compare viii. 13: "Now will He remember their iniquity and visit their sins; they shall return to Egypt;" ix. 3: "They shall not dwell in the Lord's land, and Ephraim returns to Egypt." (Compare, on this passage, the Author's _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, vol. i. p. 121 ff.) Moreover, in the other prophets also, the going up from, or deliverance out of, Egypt, forms throughout the basis of the second great deliverance. And this is quite natural; for both of those events stand in the closest actual connection with each other;--both proceeded from the same Divine Being; and the former was a prophecy _by fact_, and a pledge of the latter. The deliverance of the people of God from Egypt sealed their election; and from the latter the new deliverance necessarily followed;--a relation which repeats itself in individuals also. From this we may explain the fact that in the Psalms, they who celebrate God's former mercies, prove from them to Him and to themselves, throughout, that He must now also be their helper. It is then by no means a mere external similarity which induces the prophets ever and anon to refer to the deliverance from Egypt (compare the passages Mic. ii. 12, 13; Jer. xxiii. 7, 8, which bear so close a resemblance to the passage before us), any more than that the Passover is a mere memorial. Such cannot occur in the true religion which has a living God, and hence knows nothing of anything absolutely past. _Ewald's_ [Pg 226] exposition, that they go up out of the country for the purpose of further conquest, and that of _Simson_, that they go up to Jerusalem, sever the three events which, as the example of previous history shows, are evidently so closely allied; and these expositors, moreover, give, by an addition of their own, that definiteness to the words, "And they shall go up out of the land," which they can obtain only by a reference to the history of the past. In their ambiguity, they almost expressly point to such a commentary.--The article in הארץ, _the_ (_i.e._, the definite) land, is explained from the circumstance that, in the previous context, there had been an indirect allusion to their being carried away into a strange land. If Israel was no more the people of God,--if they no longer enjoyed His mercy, then it is supposed that they could not remain in the land which they had received only as the people of God, and had hitherto retained only through His mercy. But, primarily, the article refers to "the place where it was said unto them," in the preceding verse.--That along with the children of Israel, the children of Judah also assemble themselves and go up, implies a fact which the prophet had not expressly mentioned, because it did not stand immediately connected with his purpose--viz., that Judah too should be carried into captivity. It thus supplements chap. i. 7, by showing that the mercy there promised to the inhabitants of Judah is to be understood relatively only. Such suppositions, indeed, show very plainly how distinctly the future lay before the eyes of the prophet.[5]--With regard, now, to the historical reference,--it must, in the first place, be remarked, that whatever is here determined concerning it, must be applicable to all other [Pg 227] parallel passages also, in which a future reunion of Israel and Judah, and their common return to the promised land, are announced; _e.g._, Jer. iii. 18: "In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given to their fathers;" l. 4: "In those days the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, weeping shall they come and seek the Lord their God." Compare also Is. xi.; Ezek. xxxvii. 19, 20. In the passage under consideration, several interpreters, as _Theodoret_, think of the return from Babylon, and refer the "one head" to Zerubbabel. Now we certainly cannot deny that, in that event, there is a small beginning of the fulfilment. But if that had been the entire fulfilment, Hosea would more resemble a dreamer and an enthusiast than a true prophet of the living God. The objection which immediately presents itself--viz., that, after all, the greatest portion of the ten tribes, and a very considerable part of Judah, remained in captivity--is by no means the strongest. Although the whole both of Judah and Israel had returned, the real and final fulfilment could not be sought for in that event. It is not the renewed possession of the country, as such, which the prophet promises, but rather a certain kind of possession,--such a possession as that the land is completely the land of God, partaking in all the fulness of His blessings, and thus a worthy residence for the people of God, and for their children. One may be in Canaan, and yet, at the same time, in Babylon or in Assyria. Had not the threatened punishment of God been indeed as fully executed upon those who, during the Assyrian and Babylonish captivities, wandered about the country in sorrow and misery, as upon those who were carried away? Can the circumstance that Jews are even now living in Jerusalem in the deepest misery, be adduced as a proof that the loss of the promised land, with which the people were threatened, had not been completely fulfilled? It is true that, during the times of the Old Covenant, there existed a certain connection betwixt the lower and the higher kinds of possession. As soon as the people ceased to be the people of the Lord, they lost with the former, after being often previously warned by the decrease of it, the latter also. As soon as they obtained again the lower kind of possession, which could happen only in the case of a [Pg 228] return to the Lord, they recovered, to a certain degree, in proportion to the earnestness and sincerity of their conversion, the higher kind of possession also. A commencement of the fulfilment must, therefore, be at all events assumed in the return from the Babylonish captivity; but a very feeble commencement only. Just as the conversion was very superficial, so was the degree of the higher kind of possession but a very small one. The manifestations of mercy were very sparing; the condition of the new colony was, upon the whole, very poor; they did not possess the land as a free property, but only under the dominion of a foreigner. That which was, in one respect, the termination of the captivity, was, in another, much rather a continuation of it. It was certainly not the true Canaan which they possessed, any more than one still possesses the beloved object while he embraces only his corpse. Where the Lord is not present with His gifts and blessings, there Canaan cannot be. It was just as the land of the presence of the Lord, that it was so dear and valuable to all believers.--From what has now been said, it appears that, as regards the historical reference, we need not limit ourselves to the times of the Old Covenant, nor dream of a return of Israel to Canaan to take place at some future time. Luther's explanation, "They will go up from this place of pilgrimage to the heavenly father-land," is quite correct,--not indeed according to the letter, but according to the spirit. It is not the form, but the essence of the divine inheritance, which the prophet has in view. The form is a different one under the New Covenant, where the whole earth has become a Canaan; but the essence remains. To cling here to the form, would be just as absurd as if one, who, for Christ's sake, has forsaken all, were to upbraid Him because he had not received again, according to the letter of His promise, precisely an hundred-fold, lands, brothers, sisters, mothers, etc., Mark x. 30. The words of God, which are spirit and life, must be understood with spirit and life.--Suppose that the children of Israel were, at some future time, to return to Canaan, this would have nothing to do with our prophecy. In a religious point of view, it would be a matter of no consequence, and could not serve to prove the Covenant-faithfulness of God. Under the New Covenant it finds its fulfilment, that "Canaan must, even in the North, bloom joyfully around the beloved." The three stations [Pg 229]--Egypt, the wilderness, and Canaan--will continue to exist for ever; but we go from the one to the other only with the feet of the spirit, and not, as in the Old Covenant, with the feet of the body at the same time. The grossly literal explanation which knows not to separate the thought from its drapery, the essential from the accidental, agrees, just in the main point, with the allegorical explanation--viz., in interpolating, instead of interpreting.--The fulfilment of the prophecy before us is, therefore, a continuous and progressive one, which will not cease until God's whole plan of salvation be consummated. It began at Babylon, and was carried forward at the appearance of Christ, whom many out of Judah and Israel set over themselves as their head, to be their common leader to Canaan. It is, even now, realized every day before our eyes in every Israelite who follows their example. It will, at some future time, find its final fulfilment in the last and greatest manifestation of God's Covenant-faithfulness towards Israel, which, happily, is as strongly guaranteed by the New as it is by the Old Testament.--The last words of the verse have been already explained, substantially, in ver. 1. The name "Jezreel" is here used with a reference to its appellative signification. Israel appears here (compare ver. 25 [23], which serves as a commentary and as a refutation of differing interpretations) as a seed which is sown by God in fruitful land, and which shall produce a rich harvest. The figure appears, with a somewhat different turn, in Jer. xxxi. 27; Ezek. xxxvi. 9, where the house of Israel, and the house of Judah, appear as the soil in which the seed is sown by God. Analogous is also Ps. lxxii. 16: "They of the city shall flourish up like the grass of the earth."--The כי is explained by the circumstance that the sowing, which can take place only in the land of the Lord (compare ver. 25), supposes the going up from the land of the captivity. But if the day of sowing be great, if it be regarded by God as high and important, then the going up, which is the condition of sowing, must necessarily take place.

Ver. 3. "_Say ye unto your brethren, My people_ (Ammi); _and to your sisters, Who has obtained mercy_ (Ruhamah)."

The words, "My people," are a concise expression for: "You whom the Lord has called. My people." The mention of the brothers and sisters is explained by the reference to the [Pg 230] male and female members of the prophet's family. The phrase, "Say ye," is in substance equivalent to: "Then will ye be able to say." The prophet sees before him the people of the Lord who have experienced mercy; and calls upon the members to salute one another joyfully with the new name given to them by God. Such is the simple meaning of the verse, which has been darkened by a multitude of forced interpretations.

Footnote 1: In Hab. ii. 1, where the prophet is standing upon his watch, and watches to see what the Lord will say _unto_ him, it would be rather strange to translate "in me." There is nothing else to lead us to conceive that the apparition of angels in Zech. is internal. But Num. xii. 8 is quite decisive. The Lord there says, with reference to His relation to Moses, "Mouth to mouth I speak to him (בו);" and immediately afterwards it is said, "Wherefore, then, were ye not afraid to speak to My servant (בעבדי), to Moses?" It is evident that the ב cannot be explained by "in" in the one case, and by "through" in the other. It is remarkable, however, that דבר with ב occurs very frequently when the Lord Himself, or, as in Zechariah, _the_ Angel, speaks. This may, perhaps, be explained from the circumstance, that the heavenly discourses have an especially penetrating power, and sink very deeply into the heart.

Footnote 2: This is very natural, for the proper name has originally a cheering signification. It is apparent from the remarks of _Schubert_ (_Reise_ iii. S. 164-166), and of _Ritter_ (_Erdkunde_ 16, i. S. 693), on the natural condition of the plain of Jezreel, how it happened that it received this name, which means: "God sows." _Schubert_ calls the soil of Jezreel a field of corn, the seed of which is not sown by any man's hand, the ripe ears of which are not reaped by any reaper. The various kinds of corn appeared to him to be wild plants; the mules walked in them with half their bodies covered by them; the ears of wheat were sown by themselves. "All travellers," says _Ritter_, "agree in their descriptions of the extraordinary beauty and fertility of the plain."

Footnote 3: This transference was so much the more natural, as, under the government of the house of Jehu, guilt had certainly been frequently concentrated in the form of blood-guiltiness. Compare Is. i. 21, where the prophet, in order to mark out the reigning sin in its highest degree, represents Jerusalem as being full of murderers.

Footnote 4: _Hitzig_ is of opinion that "the prophet cannot blame him for the death of Joram and Jezebel, but may well do so for the murder of Ahaziah, king of Judah, and of his brethren, and for the carnage described in 2 Kings x. 11." But Ahaziah was not killed at Jezreel: compare 2 Kings ix. 27; 2 Chron. xxii. 9. And "the carnage in 2 Kings xii." likewise took place at Jezreel to a small extent only, in so far, namely, as it concerned the princes of the house of Ahab, who still remained in Jezreel. Compare _Thenius_ on this passage.

Footnote 5: That the carrying away of Judah, which is here supposed, is a total and future one, and not, as _Hofmann_ (_Weiss. u. Erf._ i. S. 210) asserts, one which is partial and already past (Joel iv. [iii.] 2-8; Amos i. 6, 9), appears from the analogy of the children of Israel,--from the reference to the type of the Egyptian conditions,--from a comparison of chap. v. 5, 12, xii. 1-3,--from the fact that the carrying away is placed in the view of the _whole people_ as early as in the Pentateuch, _e.g._, Deut. xxviii. 36, iv. 26, 27,--and, finally, from the fact, that the other prophets also, even from the most ancient times, manifest a clear knowledge of the catastrophe which threatened Judah also; compare, _e.g._, Amos ii. 4, 5. Moreover, in Is. xi. 11, 12, also, the return of Judah is prophesied, although no express announcement of the carrying away precedes. In like manner, in Amos ix. 11, the restoration of the fallen tabernacle of David is foretold, although no express mention is made of its fall.

CHAP. II. 4-25 (2-23).

"The significant couple"--_Rückert_ remarks--"disappears in the thing signified by it; Israel itself appears as the wife of whoredoms." This is the only essential difference between this and the preceding sections; and it is the less marked, because even there, in the last part of it, the symbolical action passed over into a mere figure. With this exception, this section also contains the alternation of punishment and threatening, and of promise,--the latter beginning with ver. 16 (14). The features of the image, which were less attended to in the preceding portion, but are here more carefully portrayed, are the rejection of the unfaithful wife, and her gradual restoration. _Calvin_ says: "After God has laid open their sins before men. He adds some consolation, and tempers the severity, lest they should despair. But then He returns again to threatenings, and He must do so necessarily; for though men may have been terrified by the fear of punishment, yet they do not recover, and become wise for ever." "By a new impetus as it were," says _Manger_, "he suddenly returns to expand the same argument, and sets out again from things more sad."

Ver. 4. "_Contend with your mother, contend; for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband: and let her put away her whoredoms from her face, and her adultery from her breasts._"

_Calvin_ is of opinion that a contrast is here intended, inasmuch as the Israelites were striving with God, and attributed to Him the cause of their misfortune: "Do not contend with Me, but rather with your mother, who, by her adultery, has brought down _righteous_ punishment upon herself and upon you." But this interpretation is inadmissible; because it proceeds [Pg 231] from the unfounded supposition that the divorce is to be considered as having already taken place outwardly, whilst the contending here clearly appears as one by which divorce may yet be averted. The words, "Contend with your mother," rather mean, on the contrary, that it is high time to call her to account, if they would not go to destruction along with her. From this, however, we are not entitled to infer that the moral condition of the children was better than that of the mother. Without any regard to their moral condition, the prophet only wishes to say that their interest required them to do this. If it were not his intention just to carry out the image of adultery, he might as well have called upon the mother to contend against the children, as it is said in Is. li. 1: "Behold, for your iniquities you have been sold, and for your transgression your mother has been put away." In point of fact, the mother has no standing-place apart from the children. _Vitringa_ says: "One and the same people is called 'mother' when viewed in their collective character; and 'children' when viewed in the individuals who are born of that people. For a people is born from the people. For the whole people is considered according to that which is radical in it, which constitutes its nature and substance,--and, in this respect, it is called the 'mother of its citizens.'" But we are as little entitled to infer from this exhortation, that a reform, and an averting of the threatened judgments, may still be hoped for. This is opposed by what follows, where the wife appears as incorrigible, and her rejection as unavoidable. The fundamental thought is, on the contrary, only this:--that a reform is necessary if the threatened judgments are to be averted. That this necessity, however, would not become a reality, the prophet foresaw; and for this reason he speaks unconditionally in the sequel. But from this again it must not be inferred that, in that case, his exhortations and threatenings would be altogether in vain. Though no reform was to be expected from the people, single individual might, nevertheless, be converted. At the same time, it was of great importance for the future, that before the calamity should break in, a right view of it should be opened up to the whole people. It is of great importance, that if any one be smitten, he should know for what reason. The instructions in the doctrines of Christianity, which a criminal has received in childhood, may [Pg 232] often seem for a long series of years to have been altogether in vain; but afterwards, notwithstanding, when punishment has softened his heart, they bring forth their fruits.--In the words, "For she is not my wife, and I am not her husband," the ground of the exhortation is stated. Even for this reason, the words cannot be referred to the _external_ dissolution of the marriage, to the punishment of the wife; they signify rather the _moral_ dissolution of the marriage--the guilt of the wife--and are equivalent to: "our marriage is dissolved _de facto_." But in the case of the spiritual marriage, this dissolution _de facto_ is always, sooner or later, according to the greater or smaller measure of God's forbearance, followed by the dissolution _de jure_; or, to speak without figure, wherever there is sin, punishment will always follow. God bears with much weakness on the part of His people; but wherever, through this weakness, the relation to Him is essentially dissolved, He there annuls the relation altogether. The παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας applies to spiritual marriages also. The surrender of the main faculties and powers of our nature to something which is not God, stands on a par with carnal adultery. Thus, then, the connection betwixt "contend" and "for" clearly appears.--Many interpreters, viewing the clause beginning with כי as parenthetical, would connect the last words of the verse with ריבו: "Contend with your mother that she may put away." But the words are rather to be considered as parallel with the first member; for "contend," etc., is equivalent to: "seek to bring your mother to a better way," or: "let your mother reform herself." Her crime is designated first as whoredom, and then as adultery. The relation in which the two stand to one another is plainly seen from chap. i. 2, where the notion of adultery is paraphrased by: "whoring away from the Lord." By "whoredom," the _genus_--carnal crimes in general--is designated; by "adultery," the _species_, or carnal crime by which the sacred rights of another person are, at the same time, violated. The idea of whoredom, when transferred to a spiritual relation, implies chiefly the worldliness of those with whom God has not entered into any special relation; whilst the idea of adultery implies the worldliness of individuals and communities with whom God has entered into a special marriage, and whose apostasy is, for this reason, far more culpable. Leaving out of [Pg 233] view the more aggravating circumstance, the prophet first speaks of whoredom in the case of the children of Israel also.--The reason why the whoredom is here attributed to the face, and the adultery to the breasts, is well given by _Manger_: "We need not have any difficulty about seeing adultery attributed to the very face and breasts. There is a certain expressiveness in this conciseness which demonstrates, as it were before our eyes, that, in her whole deportment, the wife was given over to sensuality, and that her whole aim was only to excite to it, and to practise it. For the face is, with women, the sign of dissolute lasciviousness--as _Horace_ expresses it in his Odes, I. 19:--

Urit grata protervitas
Et vultus nimium lubricus aspici.

Ezekiel, too, in chap. xxiii. 3, speaks of 'the pressed breasts of Israel in Egypt.'" _Schmid_ states as the reason why just the face and breasts are mentioned, "that Scripture, in order not to offend modesty, forbears to mention the worse and grosser deeds of fornication." But this is very little in harmony with the manner of Scripture--as may be seen from a comparison of Ezek. xvi. and xxiii., and of ver. 12 of the chapter before us. The reason rather is, that those parts are here specially to be mentioned, in which the whoring nature openly manifests itself; so that the highest degree of impudence is thereby expressed. This then shows that there is no longer any halting, no longer any struggle of the better against the evil principle. Such an impudent whore he resembles who, without shame or concern, publicly exhibits his devotedness to the world. In this way has _Calvin_ also explained it. "There is no doubt," says he, "that the prophet here expresses the impudence of the people, who in their hardihood, in their contempt of God, in their sinful superstitions, and in every kind of wickedness, had gone to such lengths, that they were like whores who do not conceal their turpitude, but publicly prostitute themselves, yea, try to exhibit the signs of their wickedness in their eyes, as well as in their whole body."

Ver. 5. "_Lest I strip her naked and expose her as in the day of her birth, and make her like the wilderness, and set her like dry land, and slay her by thirst._"